Examination of the wreckage revealed no deficiencies, engine failure or aircraft system failure. There was no indication of any emergency situation or aircraft problems before the impact. The wreckage damage is consistent with a loss of control following a stall. The aircraft stalled at about 100 feet above the ground, an altitude insufficient to effect a recovery. There was no evidence that incapacitation affected the pilot's or passenger's performance. Although the autopsy performed on the front seat passenger revealed the presence of coronary heart disease, no recent indications of thrombosis or infarction were observed. The take-off flight path chosen was shorter than the usual flight path used by local pilots. Thus, the flight path for the initial climb before clearing the obstacles was shorter. As a result, at a given point, the aircraft was not as high over the obstacles as it should have been if the take-off run had been started at the far end of the lake. The investigation was not able to determine why the pilot did not follow the take-off flight path suggested by the owner of the wharf. After becoming airborne, the aircraft should have made a 60left turn towards the saddle at the south end of the lake in order to be able to continue the turn over the lowest terrain. However, the floatplane did not stop its turn when it was facing the saddle; it continued to turn until it was facing the departure wharf over which it flew shortly after. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to think that the pilot flying completed this manoeuvre to fly over the wharf from which he had just departed. The left turn put the aircraft in tailwind conditions at low altitude, which resulted in the aircraft heading towards higher terrain than if it had been flown towards the saddle. It is possible that these conditions caused the pilot flying to increase the aircraft's attitude, thereby inadvertently decreasing the aircraft speed. The stall could thus be due to a combination of these factors, which reduced the difference between the aircraft's speed and the stall speed in conditions that were conducive to optical illusions created by drift and resulting from flying towards rising terrain. After turning into the tailwind, the ground speed increased, reducing the aircraft climb angle and extending the flight path for the climb. As a result, climbing performance was reduced. The floatplane flew over the wharf at a height that did not allow it to climb over the terrain. It is possible that a lack of familiarity with the area caused the pilot flying to underestimate the distances and effect of the wind on the aircraft's performance. It could not be determined who was at the controls during take-off or at the time of the accident. Nevertheless, the following possibilities were identified. On one hand, given that it was a training flight and that the student pilot was sitting in the seat usually occupied by the pilot flying, it is believed that the student was at the controls. On the other hand, it is also reasonable to believe that the manoeuvre was performed by the pilot-in-command since the aircraft did not fly towards the saddle, but towards the wharf where his friends were. It is also possible that the student pilot, if he was at the controls, decided to fly over the wharf without obtaining the pilot's consent. In this eventuality, the pilot would not have reacted in time to correct the flight path. Given that the pilot was not an instructor, he was less likely to rapidly recognize unsafe practices and take the appropriate measures. The collision with the trees caused a fuel leak in the right tank and damaged the electrical system that powered the various components in the right wing. The fact that the first flames appeared at the right wing root suggests that the fuel in the tank ignited. Several minutes were necessary to create a flammable gas mixture.Analysis Examination of the wreckage revealed no deficiencies, engine failure or aircraft system failure. There was no indication of any emergency situation or aircraft problems before the impact. The wreckage damage is consistent with a loss of control following a stall. The aircraft stalled at about 100 feet above the ground, an altitude insufficient to effect a recovery. There was no evidence that incapacitation affected the pilot's or passenger's performance. Although the autopsy performed on the front seat passenger revealed the presence of coronary heart disease, no recent indications of thrombosis or infarction were observed. The take-off flight path chosen was shorter than the usual flight path used by local pilots. Thus, the flight path for the initial climb before clearing the obstacles was shorter. As a result, at a given point, the aircraft was not as high over the obstacles as it should have been if the take-off run had been started at the far end of the lake. The investigation was not able to determine why the pilot did not follow the take-off flight path suggested by the owner of the wharf. After becoming airborne, the aircraft should have made a 60left turn towards the saddle at the south end of the lake in order to be able to continue the turn over the lowest terrain. However, the floatplane did not stop its turn when it was facing the saddle; it continued to turn until it was facing the departure wharf over which it flew shortly after. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to think that the pilot flying completed this manoeuvre to fly over the wharf from which he had just departed. The left turn put the aircraft in tailwind conditions at low altitude, which resulted in the aircraft heading towards higher terrain than if it had been flown towards the saddle. It is possible that these conditions caused the pilot flying to increase the aircraft's attitude, thereby inadvertently decreasing the aircraft speed. The stall could thus be due to a combination of these factors, which reduced the difference between the aircraft's speed and the stall speed in conditions that were conducive to optical illusions created by drift and resulting from flying towards rising terrain. After turning into the tailwind, the ground speed increased, reducing the aircraft climb angle and extending the flight path for the climb. As a result, climbing performance was reduced. The floatplane flew over the wharf at a height that did not allow it to climb over the terrain. It is possible that a lack of familiarity with the area caused the pilot flying to underestimate the distances and effect of the wind on the aircraft's performance. It could not be determined who was at the controls during take-off or at the time of the accident. Nevertheless, the following possibilities were identified. On one hand, given that it was a training flight and that the student pilot was sitting in the seat usually occupied by the pilot flying, it is believed that the student was at the controls. On the other hand, it is also reasonable to believe that the manoeuvre was performed by the pilot-in-command since the aircraft did not fly towards the saddle, but towards the wharf where his friends were. It is also possible that the student pilot, if he was at the controls, decided to fly over the wharf without obtaining the pilot's consent. In this eventuality, the pilot would not have reacted in time to correct the flight path. Given that the pilot was not an instructor, he was less likely to rapidly recognize unsafe practices and take the appropriate measures. The collision with the trees caused a fuel leak in the right tank and damaged the electrical system that powered the various components in the right wing. The fact that the first flames appeared at the right wing root suggests that the fuel in the tank ignited. Several minutes were necessary to create a flammable gas mixture. The flight path towards the wharf put the aircraft into a tailwind facing a mountain slope that was too high for the floatplane's climbing performance. The aircraft stalled in conditions conducive to optical illusions created by drift and resulting from flying towards rising terrain; there was insufficient altitude available to effect a recovery.Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors The flight path towards the wharf put the aircraft into a tailwind facing a mountain slope that was too high for the floatplane's climbing performance. The aircraft stalled in conditions conducive to optical illusions created by drift and resulting from flying towards rising terrain; there was insufficient altitude available to effect a recovery.